I made a new bible translation and ask for feedback

[Watchman22]

Well Watchman ...let's not continue to post each other. I do not see how there would be any common ground, you are steeped in ... more about yourself, I. think? Let's just agree to disagree an disngage ... let me know, though, when you really want to talk about the Pauline epistles ... text variants, the grammar, and the word usage ... real discussions, that sort of stuff.

I don't honor myself, but I do honor my gifted instructor. He amassed the largest collection of biblical manuscripts in private hands behind the Vatican. He set the bar on the study of Pauline epistles. The fact you feel threatened somehow by his sound number one rule of translating is telling. His wife took his mantle and the collection, and like him is fluent in all the ancient languages. There's nobody even in the same hemisphere with her teachings.

Missed opportunity RWR.

 

[RWRiley]

Is the Grace you find within the message from Paul why you don't go to Church according to your profile?

The Church set up by Paul that's similar to the ancient Synagogue was ultimately designed by God Himself. Both have a Shepherd and a flock. Within the flock there are many different roles but they all work together pointing everyone to God.

I do enjoy the entire Bible from both Covenants because one foretells of things to come and the other confirms the other one. All together they paint a complete picture of Yeshua.

You avoided the question?
You'd have to show me, how you are reading the Pauline epistles, in order to come to your "synagogue" conclusions ...?
And, you'd have to clarify what you intend, when you say "church" ...?

But again, you are sort of missing what I am doing with the scriptures; that is, I am not attempting to compile some doctrines or "how to" and "what not" and "who is" and "where at" ... What I am trying to do, is very simple ... I am just trying to prepare my paint palette, the vital surface upon which I hold, arrange, and mix the paints ... Only then, will I ever attempt to actually paint the colors on canvas.
You, apparently, have already painted yours ...

 

[lrs68]

You avoided the question?
You'd have to show me, how you are reading the Pauline epistles, in order to come to your "synagogue" conclusions ...?
And, you'd have to clarify what you intend, when you say "church" ...?

Paul's Letters give great detail to the structure of new Church in the Corinthians Letters and provide more structure in his letters to Timothy.

But again, you are sort of missing what I am doing with the scriptures; that is, I am not attempting to compile some doctrines or "how to" and "what not" and "who is" and "where at" ... What I am trying to do, is very simple ... I am just trying to prepare my paint palette, the vital surface upon which I hold, arrange, and mix the paints ... Only then, will I ever attempt to actually paint the colors on canvas.
You, apparently, have already painted yours ...

It reads like you are taking a few specifics from each Letter and grouping them together as one unified message. But I don't believe that's how God nor Paul intended it to be done. So tell me what have you concluded by doing as such? Is it just Grace or Grace + something else?

 

[RWRiley]

Paul's Letters give great detail to the structure of new Church in the Corinthians Letters and provide more structure in his letters to Timothy.

It reads like you are taking a few specifics from each Letter and grouping them together as one unified message. But I don't believe that's how God nor Paul intended it to be done. So tell me what have you concluded by doing as such? Is it just Grace or Grace + something else?

Your question is sort of senseless .. But I will attempt to answer it, unlike you ... not answering my questions ... You mention the letters to Timothy ( there is one, to Titus as well; these are called the Pastorals) ... you and I will have to agree to agree about these Pastorals; that is, I am of the conclusion (after much research), that they are fraudulent; that is, were not written by Paul ... and since they claim to have been written by Paul, then that taints the whole lot ... That is, don't try to base anything on these epistles, when you are trying to convince me of something ... it's a lost cause, if you do. So then, with the chaff out of the way ... Yes, the Corinthians letters could be used to support some sort of corporate churchy type of creation ... You'd have to really work at it, but you might be able to cobble together something? Me ... I will leave that matter up to God, and Christ ... They know who they have out-called, and they know what such a grouping would look like ... I'll levae all of that to Them, jut knowing that I am, indeed, a part of it ... whatever form it really takes.
.
Now then, you ask a good question ... you surprised me! .. "Is it just Grace or Grace + something else?"

It's a vauguly worded question, allowing you to jump off in any tangent ... but I will take the liberty of thinking that you just might be asking ... "What is grace?" ... Am I close ... tell me when I get near?

 

[lrs68]

Your question is sort of senseless .. But I will attempt to answer it, unlike you ... not answering my questions ... You mention the letters to Timothy ( there is one, to Titus as well; these are called the Pastorals) ... you and I will have to agree to agree about these Pastorals; that is, I am of the conclusion (after much research), that they are fraudulent; that is, were not written by Paul ... and since they claim to have been written by Paul, then that taints the whole lot ... That is, don't try to base anything on these epistles, when you are trying to convince me of something ... it's a lost cause, if you do. So then, with the chaff out of the way ... Yes, the Corinthians letters could be used to support some sort of corporate churchy type of creation ... You'd have to really work at it, but you might be able to cobble together something? Me ... I will leave that matter up to God, and Christ ... They know who they have out-called, and they know what such a grouping would look like ... I'll levae all of that to Them, jut knowing that I am, indeed, a part of it ... whatever form it really takes.
.
Now then, you ask a good question ... you surprised me! .. "Is it just Grace or Grace + something else?"

It's a vauguly worded question, allowing you to jump off in any tangent ... but I will take the liberty of thinking that you just might be asking ... "What is grace?" ... Am I close ... tell me when I get near?

Two fold question here after reading your response.

Number one, is are you claiming the 13 Letters normally believed to be written by Paul with a possibility of the addition to the Book of Hebrews not all were penned by Paul according to you?


Number two, how do you view the message from Paul completely?

Is it merely a continuation of Grace or does Paul establish any other viable beliefs and practices to the Church?
If so, how many should Paul be accredited for and which ones?

 

[OMC]

You mention the letters to Timothy ( there is one, to Titus as well; these are called the Pastorals) ... you and I will have to agree to agree about these Pastorals; that is, I am of the conclusion (after much research), that they are fraudulent; that is, were not written by Paul ... and since they claim to have been written by Paul, then that taints the whole lot ... That is, don't try to base anything on these epistles, when you are trying to convince me of something ... it's a lost cause, if you do. So then, with the chaff out of the way ... Yes, the Corinthians letters could be used to support some sort of corporate churchy type of creation ... You'd have to really work at it, but you might be able to cobble together something? Me ... I will leave that matter up to God, and Christ ... They know who they have out-called, and they know what such a grouping would look like ... I'll levae all of that to Them, jut knowing that I am, indeed, a part of it ... whatever form it really takes.

"You are free to reject the Pastorals if you wish, but simply declaring them fraudulent does not prove they are fraudulent.
If a letter truly belongs in Scripture, then removing it because it conflicts with a conclusion you have reached is not handling the evidence impartially.
As for the church, the Corinthians letters do not present some vague, undefined gathering known only to God.
They speak of identifiable assemblies, elders, discipline, communion, mutual edification, and believers meeting together.
Ultimately God does know those who are His, but Scripture also describes His people as a visible body that gathers, serves, and builds one another up."

 

[Davidstarr]

Your question is sort of senseless .. But I will attempt to answer it, unlike you ... not answering my questions ... You mention the letters to Timothy ( there is one, to Titus as well; these are called the Pastorals) ... you and I will have to agree to agree about these Pastorals; that is, I am of the conclusion (after much research), that they are fraudulent; that is, were not written by Paul ... and since they claim to have been written by Paul, then that taints the whole lot ... That is, don't try to base anything on these epistles, when you are trying to convince me of something ... it's a lost cause, if you do. So then, with the chaff out of the way ... Yes, the Corinthians letters could be used to support some sort of corporate churchy type of creation ... You'd have to really work at it, but you might be able to cobble together something? Me ... I will leave that matter up to God, and Christ ... They know who they have out-called, and they know what such a grouping would look like ... I'll levae all of that to Them, jut knowing that I am, indeed, a part of it ... whatever form it really takes.
.
Now then, you ask a good question ... you surprised me! .. "Is it just Grace or Grace + something else?"

It's a vauguly worded question, allowing you to jump off in any tangent ... but I will take the liberty of thinking that you just might be asking ... "What is grace?" ... Am I close ... tell me when I get near?

So who gets to decide which books (or chapters, or verses) in the bible are false? Which ones are true?
Only the ones you agree with can be true? Only the ones you disagree with are false?

You are on a high pedestal my friend. I hope you don't fall off.

 

[rewriter]

So who gets to decide which books (or chapters, or verses) in the bible are false? Which ones are true?
Only the ones you agree with can be true? Only the ones you disagree with are false?

You are on a high pedestal my friend. I hope you don't fall off.

The high pedestal of what is and is not scripture was set by humans long ago, largely for political reasons and originally applicable only within the Roman Empire. Since then, changes have been made due to political, theological and financial reasons. Perhaps you are unaware that Martin Luther initially wanted to elevate the Apocrypha to the level of scripture but decided it could not qualify when he saw a single verse that he did not believe could possibly be scripture. Since Luther dismissed the Apocrypha the RCC accepted it. But Protestants kept the Apocrypha with all bibles until some publishers figured out that it would cost less to produce bibles without the extra pages, and so eliminated the Apocrypha.

As for the Pastorals being Pauline, there are ample arguments for or against, which arguments do you think hold more validity or do you merely accept them because they are in the Bible. Hebrews was declared Pauline to justify including it, but very few scholars believe that it is, are you familiar with the arguments regarding that work?

Defining what is and is not scripture is a messy task. Proving divine guidance or inspiration is impossible, it can only be done by an act of faith which then seeks justification for its decision, and some justifications fit the knowable facts better than others. Even interpretations of scripture are not definite, again some interpretations fit the knowable facts better than others, but in this regard, traditional interpretations tend to fall on the side of not fitting the available facts far more often than most people would like to admit.

 

[PennEd]

I realy do not care much for the Hebrew scriptures ... And, I'd hazard the guess that you do not care that much for the Pauline epistles. Do we really have anything of note to say to each other ?

Jesus said “in the volume of the Book it is written of me”

Just what “Book” do You think He’s talking about if not the Hebrew one?

• Psalm 40:7 (KJV): "Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me."
• Hebrews 10:7 (KJV): "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."

 

[JohnDB]

At https://thecanonicalbible.com/, I have translated the bible with the books listed in the canon in the form existing 397 CE into English, using the papyri and codices that are nowadays all digitized. In 397 the bible was only existing in ancient greek. All improvements later were however done differently by the various churches and denominations. So this is the english translation of the original "source code".
As I have done the collection of all fragments and the translation mostly by myself, as there are few christians interested enough in the "source code", please let me know of any mistakes I have made?

Thanks

Cay

By 397 AD the manuscripts and scriptures were in a disaster.
Without the Levites and their traditional methods of transcribing scriptures the New Testament was a train wreck.

Enter pope Damasus 1st commissioning Saint Jerome to collect, solidify, and acertain the correct scriptures precisely.
By 405 AD he completed the first Vulgate.
The manuscripts before that time were generally error filled and incomplete.

The ONLY manuscripts we have from the time period you mentioned is the Sianiaticus....and it is Greek...more specifically the Septuagint.
Where this is problematic is that long before even 30 AD the Septuagint had become a "evil" bible. (New Testament unwritten as yet) All the care and concern and accuracy traditions abandoned by the Levites in keeping the translation accurate even though those Jews in Diaspora still reading it with regularity.

However in Israel proper the Jews went to a new school program at the Synagogue city centers. Beth gas hep her. Where children learned to read and write Hebrew, formally learn of Israeli history and every aspect of proper Jewish life. (Theres a LOT more to this)


So....
My question is...

What manuscripts are you really using?
What translation service are you using?
What significant changes have you made to traditional translation methods?
(IYKYK)

 

[Davidstarr]

The high pedestal of what is and is not scripture was set by humans long ago, largely for political reasons and originally applicable only within the Roman Empire. Since then, changes have been made due to political, theological and financial reasons. Perhaps you are unaware that Martin Luther initially wanted to elevate the Apocrypha to the level of scripture but decided it could not qualify when he saw a single verse that he did not believe could possibly be scripture. Since Luther dismissed the Apocrypha the RCC accepted it. But Protestants kept the Apocrypha with all bibles until some publishers figured out that it would cost less to produce bibles without the extra pages, and so eliminated the Apocrypha.

As for the Pastorals being Pauline, there are ample arguments for or against, which arguments do you think hold more validity or do you merely accept them because they are in the Bible. Hebrews was declared Pauline to justify including it, but very few scholars believe that it is, are you familiar with the arguments regarding that work?

Defining what is and is not scripture is a messy task. Proving divine guidance or inspiration is impossible, it can only be done by an act of faith which then seeks justification for its decision, and some justifications fit the knowable facts better than others. Even interpretations of scripture are not definite, again some interpretations fit the knowable facts better than others, but in this regard, traditional interpretations tend to fall on the side of not fitting the available facts far more often than most people would like to admit.

So you believe it is the beliefs of fallible human beings that are NOT omniscient are sufficient to determine which scriptures are true and which are false.
I think you should a closer look at that pedestal....

 

[JohnDB]

Your project is impressive, but the only honest way to evaluate mistakes in a translation of the Greek biblical corpus is to check your renderings against the actual LXX critical editions, the major uncials (especially Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus), and the standard lexica (LSJ, BDAG), because the text you posted from Genesis 1 shows you’re translating the Septuagint, but with several interpretive expansions (“invisible and unformed,” “borne over the water,” “come into being”) that reflect Brenton‑style English choices, not the raw Greek; the danger is that when you say you’ve translated “the original source code,” you’re implying the Greek of 397 CE was a single fixed text, but the manuscript tradition is plural, with variant readings, orthographic differences, and occasional lacunae, meaning any translation must disclose which base text it follows and how it resolves variants; without that apparatus, the mistakes aren’t in your English wording but in the assumption that the 397 CE canon existed as one uniform Greek Bible rather than a collection of manuscripts with differences, so the correction you need is methodological, not grammatical.

What's wrong with the Syriac?
The language went untranslated....like ever.

 

[lrs68]

What's wrong with the Syriac?
The language went untranslated....like ever.

They might reject the Peshitta because they use the Aramaic version for God Allalah that for many will read as Allah.